Doolittle


Printer Friendly

March 1, 2006
September:
  Sept. 29, 2006
  Sept. 28, 2006
  Sept. 27, 2006
  Sept. 26, 2006
  Sept. 21, 2006
  Sept. 20, 2006
  Sept. 19, 2006
  Sept. 14, 2006
  Sept. 13, 2006
  Sept. 12, 2006
  Sept. 07, 2006
  Sept. 06, 2006
JULY:
  Jul. 28, 2006
  Jul. 27, 2006
  Jul. 26, 2006
  Jul. 25, 2006
  Jul. 24, 2006
  Jul. 20, 2006
  Jul. 19, 2006
  Jul. 18, 2006
  Jul. 17, 2006
  Jul. 13, 2006
  Jul. 12, 2006
  Jul. 11, 2006
  Jul. 10, 2006
JUNE:
  Jun. 29, 2006
  Jun. 28, 2006
  Jun. 27, 2006
  Jun. 26, 2006
  Jun. 22, 2006
  Jun. 21, 2006
  Jun. 20, 2006
  Jun. 19, 2006
  Jun. 16, 2006
  Jun. 15, 2006
  Jun. 14, 2006
  Jun. 13, 2006
  Jun. 12, 2006
  Jun. 9, 2006
  Jun. 8, 2006
  Jun. 7, 2006
  Jun. 6, 2006
MAY:
  May 25, 2006
  May 24, 2006
  May 23, 2006
  May 22, 2006
  May 19, 2006
  May 18, 2006
  May 17, 2006
  May 11, 2006
  May 10, 2006
  May 4, 2006
  May 3, 2006
  May 2, 2006
APRIL:
  Apr. 27, 2006
  Apr. 26, 2006
  Apr. 25, 2006
  Apr. 6, 2006
  Apr. 5, 2006
  Apr. 4, 2006

MARCH:
  Mar. 30, 2006
  Mar. 29, 2006
  Mar. 28, 2006
  Mar. 16, 2006
  Mar. 15, 2006
  Mar. 14, 2006
  Mar. 9, 2006
  Mar. 8, 2006
  Mar. 7, 2006
  Mar. 2, 2006
  Mar. 1, 2006

FEBRUARY:
  Feb. 28, 2006
  Feb. 16, 2006
  Feb. 15, 2006
  Feb. 14, 2006
  Feb. 8, 2006
  Feb. 1, 2006

JANUARY:
  Jan. 31, 2006

DECEMBER:
  Dec. 16, 2005
  Dec. 15, 2005
  Dec. 14, 2005
  Dec. 13, 2005
  Dec. 8, 2005
  Dec. 7, 2005
  Dec. 6, 2005

Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press!  Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary

The Morning Murmur - Wednesday, March 01, 2006

1. The Redistricting Case - Washington Times Op-ed
Today, the Supreme Court is set to hear the Texas Democrats' challenge to the redrawn congressional district map that obliterated their long-held majority after the 2004 election. It's small wonder they would want to return to their former majority status, no matter how at odds that majority was with Texan voters.

2. Bush Hails Afghanistan's Progress Under Karzai - Forbes
In his first visit to Afghanistan, President Bush hailed the country's progress under President Hamid Karzai since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.

3. Prosecutors: Documents Smoking Gun - Associate Press
Prosecutors presented documents Tuesday they said show Saddam Hussein approved executions of more than 140 Shiites in the 1980s, the most direct evidence yet against the former Iraqi leader in his four-month trial. Among those sentenced to hang was an 11-year-old boy.

4. Scandals Don't Deliver Elections - USA Today Op-ed
For months now, the Democrats have been giving voice to the charge that the Republicans in Washington preside over a "culture of corruption" as the key to regaining the majority in the House and Senate in the 2006 elections. But when political scandals of the past are examined, it turns out that few of them have, by themselves, made much difference in the ensuing election.

5. U.S. Told to Help 15 Cubans Return - Washington Times
A federal judge ruled yesterday that the U.S. government acted unreasonably when it sent home 15 Cubans who thought they had made it to the United States safely when their boat reached an abandoned bridge in the Florida Keys. The judge ordered the federal government to make its best effort to help the 15 return to the United States.

For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov

FULL ARTICLES BELOW:

1. The Redistricting Case - Washington Times Op-ed

Published March 1, 2006

Today, the Supreme Court is set to hear the Texas Democrats' challenge to the redrawn congressional district map enacted by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2003. Democrats are steamed, because the new map obliterated their long-held majority after the 2004 election. It's small wonder they would want to return to their former majority status, no matter how at odds that majority was with Texan voters.

The Texas congressional map was redrawn was in 1991 -- by a Democratic-controlled legislature. (A 2002 court-mandated redistricting basically reaffirmed the 1991 map.) In 1994, Democratic candidates received just 43 percent of the vote, but won 63 percent of the congressional seats (a 19-11 majority). In 2002, when Republicans swept all statewide offices and garnered 56 percent of the congressional vote, Democrats maintained a 17-15 majority. In fact, no Texas Democrat has won a statewide office since 1994. A year later, Republicans took over the legislature and redrew the map.

No one questions what Republicans were trying to do. The new map led them to a 21-11 majority in 2004 election. But Republicans also received nearly 60 percent of the overall congressional vote. It's fair to argue that this is a better reflection of the partisan breakdown of Texan voters, than the former Democratic power grab. Clearly, the Democrats want to return Texas to the imbalance of the 1990s.

Because the Democrats have challenged the 2003 map on numerous grounds, such as arguing certain redrawn districts violate the Voting Rights Act, there are several issues for the court to consider. The voting-rights complaint charges that Republicans split districts to intentionally dilute the strength of minority voting blocs. It's a specious claim, since it assumes that a particular race will always vote for a particular party. It also ignores that the 2003 map added a minority-majority district. But the jurisprudence on this part of the Voting Rights Act is so muddled there is really no telling how the court might rule.

The larger question -- whether redistricting for partisan advantage is constitutional -- has no clear precedent. In a 2004 Pennsylvania redistricting case, the court split 4-4 on whether political gerrymandering claims could ever be justly decided, with the conservative bloc arguing that they could not. Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose swing vote dismissed the case, agreed that standards of unconstitutional gerrymandering could be devised in theory, just not in that case.

Democrats also argue that it is unconstitutional to redistrict more than once in a decade. But nothing in the Constitution prevents it. Moreover, the Texas electoral history mentioned above shows once-a-decade redistricting may create an undemocratic system.

There are many ways the Supreme Court could rule this one, some more satisfactory than others. The court could strike down one or two of the new districts on the grounds that they violate the Voting Rights Act, which would require the legislature to redraw them. They would then be reviewed by a three-judge panel. Or it could strike the map entirely. Such a precedent would allow any state's minority party to contest its congressional district map and further involve the judiciary in legislative affairs.

Which is why the court would be wise to let the map stand. Far better to acknowledge that gerrymandering is a problem, but a problem for the states to solve.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060228-091050-1569r.htm

2. Bush Hails Afghanistan's Progress Under Karzai - Forbes

March 1, 2006

KABUL (AFX) - US President George W Bush has hailed Afghanistan's progress under President Hamid Karzai since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.

'We are impressed by the progress that your country is making Mr President, a lot of it has to do with your leadership,' Bush told Karzai at a joint conference during the US leader's first visit to the country.

'People all over the world are watching the experience here in Afghanistan. I hope the people of Afghanistan understand that democracy takes hold,' he said.

'You are inspiring others and that inspiration will cause others to demand their freedom, and as the world becomes more free the world will become more peaceful.'

He added: 'It's a thrill to come to a country which is dedicating itself to the dignity of every person who lives here.'

Bush said the US embassy in Kabul, which he was officially opening during his visit, is a 'clear statement' to the people of Afghanistan that the United States is dedicated to helping the country.

'It's our country's pleasure and honor to be involved in the future of this country,' he added.

'We like stories of young girls going to school for the first time so they can realize their potential. We appreciate the free press. We are enthralled when we see an entrepreuneurial class grow up where people are able to grow up and realize their dreams,' he said.

'We understand the importance of having a well-trained military dedicated to the sovereignty of the country and to the peace of the people.'

Karzai said Afghanistan is indebted to the United States, which led the military operation that overthrew the hardline Taliban following the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

'We owe a great, great deal in this country's rebuilding peace, democracy -- strong steps towards the future -- to your support, to your leadership, to the American people,' Karzai said

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/03/01/afx2561004.html

3. Prosecutors: Documents Smoking Gun - Associate Press
March 1, 2006

BY BASSEM MROUE

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Prosecutors presented documents Tuesday they said show Saddam Hussein approved executions of more than 140 Shiites in the 1980s, the most direct evidence yet against the former Iraqi leader in his four-month trial. Among those sentenced to hang was an 11-year-old boy.

The most significant document featured a signature said to be Saddam's on a court list of people to be executed, though it was not clear he was aware of their ages. The list on that particular document only had names.

About 50 of those sentenced died during interrogation before they could go to the gallows. One man, his brother and two sons were executed by mistake, and Saddam allegedly ordered them declared "martyrs" to cover up the error.

When it was discovered that the 11-year-old and nine other juveniles were not executed but were still in prison years later, they were ordered killed and their bodies buried in secret -- an order approved with a signature the prosecution said was that of the intelligence agency chief at the time, Barzan Ibrahim, who is Saddam's half brother and a co-defendant in the trial.

No more shouting from Saddam

Saddam, Ibrahim and six other members of the former regime are on trial for torture, imprisonment and the killings of some 148 Shiites in a crackdown launched after a 1982 attempt to assassinate the former Iraqi leader in the town of Dujail. They face death by hanging if convicted.

Tuesday's session was one of the most orderly since the trial began in October. The defense team gave up on a boycott of the tribunal it began last month and attended the session, though chief judge Raouf Abdel-Rahman rejected their demand that he and chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Moussawi step down.

Saddam and the other defendants entered the court and took their seats silently -- in sharp contrast with nearly every other session, which began with Saddam and Ibrahim shouting slogans or arguing with the judge.

Saddam and several other defendants have ended a hunger strike he and some co-defendants started Feb. 12, two days before the last trial session, defense lawyer Khamis al-Obeidi said Sunday.

After the two-hour session, Abdel-Rahman adjourned until today.

The defense team's participation appeared to vindicate the tough approach Abdel-Rahman has taken since taking over the tribunal in late January, replacing a chief judge who had been criticized for allowing Saddam's outbursts.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-saddam01.html#

4. Scandals Don't Deliver Elections - USA Today Op-ed

By Ross K. Baker

For months now, the Democrats have been giving voice to the charge that the Republicans in Washington preside over a "culture of corruption."

The phrase was popularized by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi in her attacks on the Bush administration for its halting response to Hurricane Katrina. The cry has been taken up by other Democrats who see the scandal involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff as the key to regaining the majority in the House and making headway in the Senate in the 2006 elections.

But when political scandals of the past are examined, it turns out that few of them have, by themselves, made much difference in the ensuing election. And it turns out that Watergate, the one modern scandal that really did have monumental electoral consequences, is something of a quirk. In those few other instances in which the party in power did suffer, other factors better explain its loss.

The Lewinsky affair. We need go no further back than 1998 and the scandal surrounding the revelation that President Clinton had an extramarital relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and then attempted to cover it up by lying and allegedly trying to obstruct the investigation.

As the scandal unfolded and as the explosive report by Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr led to the House impeachment vote, House Speaker Newt Gingrich was traveling the country predicting a GOP gain in the 1998 election of between 10 and 40 seats. Instead, Democrats gained five House seats. The embarrassment led to Gingrich's loss of the speakership.

Ike and a vicuna coat. The scandal of the past that most closely resembles the current uproar over lobbying excesses is the one that struck the Eisenhower administration in June 1958. At that time, House Democrats charged that a Boston businessman - Bernard Goldfine, who was having problems with the Securities and Exchange Commission - had paid hotel bills for Eisenhower's chief of staff, Sherman Adams, and given Adams an expensive vicuna coat. Adams, in turn, interceded for Goldfine with the SEC.

The Democrats trumpeted the corruption theme, and the second Eisenhower midterm election in 1958 became a GOP debacle, one of the worst losses for a president's party that century. This election is often described as a turning point in American politics because liberal Democrats replaced so many conservative Republicans. Richard Nixon, then Eisenhower's vice president, wrote that, "Nov. 4, 1958, was one of the most depressing election nights I have ever known."

What undoubtedly caused the sky to fall on the GOP was not the Adams scandal but the worst recession since the end of World War II. In October 1957, the stock market had its sharpest decline since the one following Eisenhower's heart attack in 1955. Unemployment surged while consumer prices actually rose. Compared with this economic cataclysm, the hotel bills and the vicuna coat were blips on the voters' screens.

Teapot Dome. No political scandal in the first half of the 20th century was as notorious as the one that struck the Harding administration in 1923. It involved the transfer of land containing oil deposits in Teapot Dome in Wyoming from the Navy to the Department of the Interior and the secret leasing of those lands to oil companies by Interior Secretary Albert Fall. The scandal led to the resignations of Fall, the secretary of the Navy and the attorney general, who was a close associate of Harding.

The Democrats, who had suffered the loss of the White House in 1920 but seemed to be on the verge of a comeback, were overjoyed by the promise of real gains in the 1924 election in the wake of the scandal, but the death of Harding in 1923 and his replacement with Vice President Calvin Coolidge diverted public attention from Teapot Dome. The Republicans won a stunning victory in 1924. The new president and an improving economy trumped lingering concerns about official corruption.

What matters. Tempting as the Abramoff scandal is for Democrats and eager as they are to see the lobbyist implicate additional Republicans, the culture of corruption charge cannot be the only string to the Democrats' bow. And while further revelations may taint many more Republicans with wrongdoing, other problems such as the Iraq war, the deficit or even the turnover of American port operations to a company from the United Arab Emirates may be even more toxic for the GOP in 2006.

It is not that scandals have no political payoff for the opposition, it's that other factors are needed. The Democrats' loss of their control of both the House and Senate in 1994 was preceded by a scandal that became public in April 1992 that concerned abuses in a bank used exclusively by members of the House. But the voters' vengeance was not unleashed in the elections that November. Only when revelations of the bank's preferential treatment of House members' overdrafts combined with broader dissatisfaction with President Clinton was the full force of voters' wrath felt. But the Republicans did not stand by idly and enjoy the Democrats' agonies. They offered a "Contract with America" that gave voters more than just dissatisfaction as an incentive to vote.

Many voters take it for granted that politicians can be corrupted, and the Democrats cannot assume that their indignation will persist until November. A warranty on political integrity with no expiration date that covers all major defects in the way Congress does business, including its failure to check the excesses of the executive branch, would be a good start.

Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-02-28-baker-edit_x.htm

5. U.S. Told to Help 15 Cubans Return - Washington Times

Published March 1, 2006

MIAMI (AP) -- A federal judge ruled yesterday that the U.S. government acted unreasonably when it sent home 15 Cubans who thought they had made it to the United States safely when their boat reached an abandoned bridge in the Florida Keys.

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno ordered the federal government to make its best effort to help the 15 return to the United States, said Kendall Coffey, an attorney for the Cubans and their relatives.

Under the federal government's long-standing "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy, Cubans who reach U.S. soil are generally allowed to stay, while those stopped at sea are sent back.

In this case, the U.S. government argued that the old bridge did not count as dry land because chunks of it are missing and because it is no longer connected to U.S. soil.

The migrants landed on the pilings along a nearly three-mile span of the abandoned bridge Jan. 4, as their small boat began to take on water. Had they landed 100 yards away on the new bridge, the U.S. Coast Guard likely would have allowed them to stay.

Ramon Saul Sanchez, head of Democracy Movement, a Cuban-American advocacy group that joined in the lawsuit, was pleased with the judge's ruling.

"Really, it is a vindication for all immigrants," said Mr. Sanchez, who waged an 11-day hunger strike to protest the group's return to Cuba.

It is not clear whether Cuban leader Fidel Castro would allow the 15 to leave his communist island.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060228-110036-6793r.htm



###